tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post979948120593713125..comments2023-04-07T05:19:44.951-04:00Comments on Yes Vermont Yankee: The 90% Solution: What 90% Renewables Would Look Like in VermontMeredith Angwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-44909093320504715812013-05-20T06:54:47.366-04:002013-05-20T06:54:47.366-04:00Bill
Thank you for your thoughtful note.
Green M...Bill<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful note.<br /><br />Green Mountain Power does indeed claim a 33% capacity factor for wind for Lowell, but it also says that the existing Searsburg facility has a capacity factor of 20-25%. Capacity factors <i>claimed</i> by developers and actual <i>measured</i> capacity factors after installation can be quite different. I used 0.29%, which is the average capacity factor for the U S fleet for the past six years, according to Willem Post's careful searching for actual capacity factors:<br /><a href="http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated" rel="nofollow"> Post article </a><br /><br />Here's Wind Action Group and capacity factor by state: <a href="http://www.windaction.org/faqs/38348" rel="nofollow">WInd Action</a> East Coast wind energy capacity factors average below 30%.<br /><br />You might also see Hallquist's guest post on this blog, where he notes wind curtailment on the local grid. Hallquist is the CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, which has contracted for some of the power from Lowell Mountain.<br /><br /><a href="http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2013/03/guest-post-hallquist-on-wind-and-grid.html#.UZn_xuBfWec" rel="nofollow">Hallquist</a><br /><br />Capacity factors for wind can be argued about endlessly, but I see no reason to accept Green Mountain Power's optimistic projections as given.<br /><br />And yes, two nuclear plants would have much less impact! Thank you for that comment.Meredith Angwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02737538041807740424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-20140788505428570472013-05-20T00:01:37.769-04:002013-05-20T00:01:37.769-04:0018,000 GWh is 2.05 GW-years. By coincidence, this ...18,000 GWh is 2.05 GW-years. By coincidence, this is just about the output of two AP1000s, allowing for downtime. Of course the footprint of such a nuclear plant would be a modest multiple of the current plant. <br /><br />The Lowell Mtn. wind farm is expecting to have a capacity factor of 33%, producing about 186 GW-h (=21.2 MW-yr). If so, a hundred copies would do. <br />http://www.greenmountainpower.com/upload/photos/236KCW_QA_Feb_2013_FINAL.pdfBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08749459207189576328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3033288879708780106.post-16924318818482049092013-05-14T15:34:19.327-04:002013-05-14T15:34:19.327-04:00It's insane. All this panic-rush for "ren...It's insane. All this panic-rush for "renewables" and razing the environment to get your juice when you already have a clean low-profile plant already faithfully chugging along. Fear is one blind implacable steamroller over reason. and fact, that's for sure!<br /><br />James Greenidge<br />Queens NY<br /><br /><br />jimwghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06964988758509076556noreply@blogger.com